Anticipatory bail denied in employment fraud cases involving documented financial trails and ongoing investigations.

The applicant filed for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 93/2026

The prosecution alleges that the applicant and co-accused induced the complainant to pay ₹3,00,000/- on the false pretext of securing employment as a Data Entry Operator in the Electricity Department

Specifically, ₹85,000/- was transferred into the applicant’s bank account and subsequently moved to other co-accused via online transactions

The applicant contended she was falsely implicated based solely on bank records and argued that as a woman, she was entitled to a liberal approach regarding bail

The State opposed the application, noting that the anticipatory bail of co-accused Nitin Arun Jadhav had already been rejected by the Court on March 16, 2026

Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS given the nature of the financial allegations and the ongoing status of the investigation

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of anticipatory bail

Substantive provisions of Section 420 (Cheating) read with Section 34 (Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860

The principle of parity in judicial discretion, specifically regarding the prior rejection of a co-accused’s bail application in the same crime

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations, noting that the case diary prima facie indicated the applicant's involvement through specific financial transactions involving the complainant's money

Although the applicant argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary due to the documentary nature of the evidence and requested leniency based on her gender, the Court prioritized the nature of the fraud and the current stage of the proceedings.

The Court found that because the investigation is still ongoing and a co-accused (Nitin Arun Jadhav) had already been denied similar relief in MCRCA No. 396 of 2026, there were insufficient grounds to exercise discretion in favor of the applicant

The Court held that the nature of the allegations and the fact that the investigation is still in progress precluded the grant of relief

The application was accordingly dismissed